G.R. No. 218778 , September 23, 2020
Rodolfo N. Padrigon, Petitioner, vs. Benjamin E. Palmero, Respondent.

FACTS

Respondent Benjamin Palmero filed a complaint for collection of sum of money against petitioner Rodolfo Padrigon. The parties initially executed a Deed of Conditional Sale for a property, which was later cancelled and superseded by a new agreement. Under this new agreement, petitioner agreed to convey two parcels of land and issue checks totaling P1,000,000.00 to respondent. Petitioner issued three postdated checks, but upon deposit, they were dishonored for reason of “account closed.” Petitioner replaced only one check for P200,000.00, leaving a balance of P800,000.00 unpaid despite repeated demands.
Instead of filing an Answer to the complaint, petitioner filed a Motion to Dismiss, which was denied. After the case was revived following a period of inactivity, the trial court ordered petitioner to file his Answer. Petitioner again failed to file an Answer and was subsequently declared in default. Respondent was allowed to present evidence ex parte. The trial court ruled in favor of respondent, ordering petitioner to pay the P800,000.00 balance with interest and attorney’s fees. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the trial court’s decision which held petitioner liable for the sum of P800,000.00 based on evidence presented during the ex parte proceedings following his declaration in default.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the lower courts’ decisions. The Court held that a judgment rendered against a party in default does not equate to a judgment on the pleadings or a summary judgment. The plaintiff is still required to present evidence to prove his claim. In this case, respondent satisfactorily discharged this burden during the ex parte presentation of evidence. The dishonored checks, coupled with respondent’s testimony and the series of agreements between the parties, constituted sufficient proof of petitioner’s obligation.
The Court rejected petitioner’s argument that the obligation was extinguished by the alleged rescission of their contract. Rescission under Article 1191 of the Civil Code requires a judicial decree or, in extrajudicial rescission, a clear communication of the rescissory intent to the other party. Petitioner failed to prove any such judicial or unequivocal extrajudicial act of rescission communicated to respondent. His self-serving claim of rescission, absent clear proof, could not unilaterally extinguish the obligation. Consequently, petitioner’s liability for the unpaid balance, as established by respondent’s competent evidence, stands.